Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 7074 LabN
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 J. Meuric
Category: Standards Track Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2013
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 7074 LabN
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 J. Meuric
Category: Standards Track Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2013
Revised Definition of the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
GMPLS交换能力和类型字段的修订定义
Abstract
摘要
GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies and for hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and signaling use common values to indicate the type of switching technology. These values are carried in routing protocols via the Switching Capability field, and in signaling protocols via the Switching Type field. While the values used in these fields are the primary indicators of the technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are not consistently defined and used across the different technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is intended to resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the Switching Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning and use of the fields. This document updates all documents that use the GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202, 4203, and 5307.
GMPLS为多种交换技术和技术内的分层交换提供控制。GMPLS路由和信令使用公共值来指示交换技术的类型。这些值通过交换能力字段在路由协议中携带，通过交换类型字段在信令协议中携带。虽然这些字段中使用的值是受控制的技术和层次结构级别的主要指标，但这些值在GMPLS支持的不同技术中的定义和使用并不一致。本文件旨在通过缩小字段的含义和使用范围，解决交换能力和类型字段的定义和使用不一致的问题。本文档更新了使用GMPLS交换能力和类型字段的所有文档，尤其是RFCs 3471、4202、4203和5307。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7074.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7074.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides control for multiple switching technologies. It also supports hierarchical switching within a technology. The original GMPLS Architecture, per [RFC3945], included support for five types of switching capabilities. An additional type was also defined in [RFC6002]. The switching types defined in these documents include:
广义多协议标签交换（GMPLS）为多种交换技术提供控制。它还支持技术内部的分层交换。根据[RFC3945]，最初的GMPLS体系结构包括对五种类型交换功能的支持。[RFC6002]中还定义了另一种类型。这些文件中定义的开关类型包括：
1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
1. 支持分组交换（PSC）
2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
2. 支持第二层交换机（L2SC）
3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM)
3. 支持时分多路复用（TDM）
4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
4. 支持Lambda交换机（LSC）
5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
5. 支持光纤交换机（FSC）
6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)
6. 支持数据通道交换（DCSC）
Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field. In general, hierarchy within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion, and a single Switching Capability field value is defined per type. The exception to this is PSC, which was assigned four values to indicate four levels of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, and PSC-4. The same values used in routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are carried in the Switching Type field. Following the IANA registry, we refer to the values used in the routing Switching Capability field and signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types.
在[RFC4202]、[RFC4203]和[RFC5307]中为路由定义了对原始类型的支持，其中类型在交换能力（交换上限）字段中表示。通常，类型内的层次结构以特定于类型的方式进行处理，并为每个类型定义一个开关能力字段值。PSC是一个例外，它被分配了四个值来表示四个层次：PSC-1、PSC-2、PSC-3和PSC-4。[RFC3471]中为信令定义了路由中使用的相同值，并在交换类型字段中携带。在IANA注册表之后，我们将路由交换能力字段和信令交换类型字段中使用的值称为交换类型。
In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data-plane technology; this needs to be inferred from context. For example, L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was defined to cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328]. The basic assumption was that different technologies of the same type would never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and routing domains.
一般来说，切换类型并不表示特定的数据平面技术；这需要从上下文中推断出来。例如，L2SC被定义为覆盖以太网和ATM，TDM被定义为覆盖SONET/SDH[RFC4606]和G.709[RFC4328]。基本假设是，同一类型的不同技术永远不会在同一控制范围内运行，即信令和路由域。
The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be problematic from two perspectives. The first issue is that some examples of switching technologies have different levels of switching that can be performed within the same technology. For example, there are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may occur within a provider network. The second issue is that the Switching Capability field value is used in Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) to indicate the format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI) field, and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is impractical for implementations that support multiple switching technologies. These issues led to the introduction of two new types for Ethernet in [RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely:
过去的切换类型分配方法从两个角度证明是有问题的。第一个问题是，交换技术的一些示例具有可在同一技术内执行的不同级别的交换。例如，在提供商网络中可能发生多种类型的以太网交换。第二个问题是，内部网关协议（IGP）中使用交换能力字段值来指示交换能力特定信息（SCSI）字段的格式，并且类型到SCSI格式的隐式映射对于支持多种交换技术的实现是不切实际的。这些问题导致[RFC6004]和[RFC6060]中引入了两种新的以太网类型，即：
7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)
7. 以太网虚拟专用线（EVPL）
8. 802_1 PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering)
8. 802_1 PBB-TE（提供商主干网桥流量工程）
An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the SCSI field.
为了消除SCSI字段格式的歧义，[GMPLS-G709]还设想为支持G.709v3分配一个附加值。
While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3, and PSC-4.
虽然交换技术中层次结构级别的通用表示肯定符合GMPLS的设计目标，但多个PSC交换类型的定义也被证明没有什么价值。值得注意的是，PSC-2、PSC-3和PSC-4没有已知用途。
This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related fields and narrowing their use. In particular, this document deprecates the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of hierarchy levels within a switching technology and limits its use to the identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format.
本文件建议通过缩小相关字段的范围并缩小其使用范围来解决此类不一致的开关类型定义和使用。特别是，本文档反对使用交换类型作为交换技术中层次结构级别的标识符，并将其使用限制为识别每种交换技术的SCSI字段格式。
This document updates all documents that use the GMPLS Switching Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202, 4203, and 5307.
本文档更新了使用GMPLS交换能力和交换类型字段的所有文档，尤其是RFCs 3471、4202、4203和5307。
The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling protocols. Values are identified in IANA's "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry, which is currently located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ gmpls-sig-parameters/>.
交换类型值在路由协议和信令协议中都有。值在IANA的“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令参数”注册表中标识，该注册表当前位于<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ gmpls sig参数/>。
For routing, a common information element is defined to carry Switching Type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in [RFC4202]. Per [RFC4202], Switching Type values are carried in a Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting in both OSPF as defined by [RFC4203] and in IS-IS as defined by [RFC5307]:
对于路由，在[RFC4202]中定义了一个公共信息元素来携带OSPF和is-is路由协议的交换类型值。根据[RFC4202]，在接口交换能力描述符的交换能力（交换上限）字段中携带交换类型值。此信息在[RFC4203]定义的OSPF和[RFC5307]定义的IS-IS中共享一种通用格式：
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
...
The content of the Switching Capability-specific information field depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
交换能力特定信息字段的内容取决于交换能力字段的值。
Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used by [RFC3473]:
类似地，交换类型字段定义为[RFC3471]中GMPLS信令协议使用的通用格式的一部分，并由[RFC3473]使用：
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Switching Type: 8 bits
开关类型：8位
Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a particular link. This field is needed for links that advertise more than one type of switching capability. This field should
指示应在特定链路上执行的切换类型。此字段用于通告多种类型交换能力的链路。这个领域应该
map to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link in the routing Switching Capability Descriptor ...
映射到路由交换能力描述符中相应链路的播发值之一。。。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This document modifies the definition of Switching Type. The definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are described in the following sections.
本文件修改了开关类型的定义。路由和信令的定义略有不同，将在以下章节中介绍。
For routing [RFC4202] [RFC4203] [RFC5307], the following definition should be used for Switching Cap field:
对于路由[RFC4202][RFC4203][RFC5307]，切换Cap字段应使用以下定义：
The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values. A different Switching Type value SHOULD be used for each data-plane technology, even when those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or switching. For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) [G.707] and Optical Transport Network (OTN) [G.709], should use two different Switching Types.
切换上限字段表示通过GMPLS切换类型值播发的切换类型。每个数据平面技术应使用不同的交换类型值，即使这些技术共享相同类型的多路复用或交换。例如，具有不同复用结构的时分复用（TDM）技术，如同步数字体系（SDH）[G.707]和光传输网络（OTN）[G.709]，应使用两种不同的交换类型。
As the format of the Switching Capability-specific information field is dependent on the value of this field, a different Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between different Switching Capability-specific information field formats.
由于交换能力特定信息字段的格式取决于该字段的值，因此必须使用不同的交换类型值来区分不同的交换能力特定信息字段格式。
This definition does not modify the format of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor.
此定义不修改接口交换能力描述符的格式。
Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new switching technology might use a different Switching Capability-specific information field format, a new Switching Type SHOULD be used.
请注意，从实用的角度来看，这意味着任何时候新的交换技术可能使用不同的交换能力特定信息字段格式，都应该使用新的交换类型。
For signaling [RFC3471], which is used by [RFC3473], the following definition should be used for the Switching Type field:
对于[RFC3473]使用的信号[RFC3471]，切换类型字段应使用以下定义：
Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values. This field maps to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link in the routing Switching Capability Descriptor, see [RFC4203] and [RFC5307].
指示应通过GMPLS切换类型值在特定链路上执行的切换类型。此字段映射到路由交换能力描述符中相应链路的播发值之一，请参阅[RFC4203]和[RFC5307]。
Note that from a practical standpoint, there is no change in the definition of this field.
请注意，从实际角度来看，该字段的定义没有变化。
This document deprecates the following Switching Types:
本文档不推荐以下切换类型：
Value Name 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
值名称2支持分组交换机-2（PSC-2）3支持分组交换机-3（PSC-3）4支持分组交换机-4（PSC-4）
These values SHOULD be treated as unsupported types and, in the case of signaling, processed according to Section 2.1.1 of [RFC3473].
这些值应视为不受支持的类型，如果是信号，应根据[RFC3473]第2.1.1节进行处理。
For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3, and 4. At the time of publication, there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make use of these values, so there are no compatibility issues for current routing and signaling implementations.
对于现有的实现，本文档的主要影响是不推荐使用PSC-2、3和4。在发布时，还没有使用这些值的已知部署（甚至实现），因此当前路由和信令实现不存在兼容性问题。
This document impacts the values carried in a single field in signaling and routing protocols. As no new protocol formats or mechanisms are defined, there are no particular security implications raised by this document.
本文档影响信令和路由协议中单个字段中的值。由于没有定义新的协议格式或机制，因此本文档没有提出任何特定的安全问题。
For a general discussion on MPLS- and GMPLS-related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
有关MPLS和GMPLS相关安全问题的一般性讨论，请参阅MPLS/GMPLS安全框架[RFC5920]。
IANA has deprecated some values and redefined the related values in the "IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB" definitions. In particular, the Switching Types portion of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry been revised to read:
IANA已弃用了一些值，并在“IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB”定义中重新定义了相关值。特别是，“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令参数”注册表中的交换类型部分修改为：
Switching Types
开关类型
Registration Procedures
登记程序
Standards Action
标准行动
Reference [RFC3471][RFC4328][This Document]
参考[RFC3471][RFC4328][本文件]
Value Name Reference
0 Unassigned
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) [RFC3471]
2 Deprecated [This Document]
3 Deprecated [This Document]
4 Deprecated [This Document]
5-29 Unassigned
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
31-39 Unassigned
40 802_1 PBB-TE [RFC6060]
41-50 Unassigned
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) [RFC3471]
52-99 Unassigned
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
101-124 Unassigned
125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
126-149 Unassigned
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471]
151-199 Unassigned
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471]
201-255 Unassigned
Value Name Reference
0 Unassigned
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) [RFC3471]
2 Deprecated [This Document]
3 Deprecated [This Document]
4 Deprecated [This Document]
5-29 Unassigned
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
31-39 Unassigned
40 802_1 PBB-TE [RFC6060]
41-50 Unassigned
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) [RFC3471]
52-99 Unassigned
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
101-124 Unassigned
125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
126-149 Unassigned
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471]
151-199 Unassigned
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471]
201-255 Unassigned
A parallel change to IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB was also made. In particular, under IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC a reference to this document has been added as item 3. The following changes have also been made to the related values:
还对IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB进行了平行变更。特别是，在IANAGMPLSSSwitchingTypeTC下，添加了对本文件的参考，作为第3项。还对相关值进行了以下更改：
psc2(2), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc3(3), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc4(4), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc2(2), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc3(3), -- Deprecated [This Document]
psc4(4), -- Deprecated [This Document]
We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type fields. Daniele Ceccarelli and Adrian Farrel provided valuable feedback on this document.
我们感谢John Drake强调了当前与交换能力和类型字段相关的不一致定义。Daniele Ceccarelli和Adrian Farrel对此文件提供了宝贵的反馈。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3471]Berger，L.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令功能描述”，RFC 3471，2003年1月。
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4202]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的路由扩展”，RFC 4202，2005年10月。
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4203]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的OSPF扩展”，RFC 4203，2005年10月。
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC5307]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的IS-IS扩展”，RFC 5307，2008年10月。
[G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)".
[G.707]ITU-T建议G.707/Y.1322（2007），“同步数字体系（SDH）的网络节点接口”。
[G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)".
[G.709]ITU-T建议G.709/Y.1331（2009），“光传输网络（OTN）接口”。
[GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., and D. Ceccarelli, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks", Work in Progress, September 2013.
[GMPLS-G709]Zhang，F.，Li，D.，Li，H.，Belotti，S.，和D.Ceccarelli，“G.709光传输网络的GMPLS和PCE控制框架”，正在进行的工作，2013年9月。
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3473]Berger，L.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，RFC 3473，2003年1月。
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC3945]Mannie，E.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）体系结构”，RFC 39452004年10月。
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4328]Papadimitriou，D.，编辑，“G.709光传输网络控制的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令扩展”，RFC 4328，2006年1月。
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4606]Mannie，E.和D.Papadimitriou，“同步光网络（SONET）和同步数字体系（SDH）控制的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）扩展”，RFC 4606，2006年8月。
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC5920]方，L.，编辑，“MPLS和GMPLS网络的安全框架”，RFC 5920，2010年7月。
[RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC6002]Berger，L.和D.Fedyk，“通用MPLS（GMPLS）数据信道交换功能（DCSC）和信道集标签扩展”，RFC6002，2010年10月。
[RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching", RFC 6004, October 2010.
[RFC6004]Berger，L.和D.Fedyk，“对城域以太网论坛和G.8011以太网服务交换的通用MPLS（GMPLS）支持”，RFC 60042010年10月。
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
[RFC6060]Fedyk，D.，Shah，H.，Bitar，N.，和A.Takacs，“以太网提供商主干流量工程（PBB-TE）的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）控制”，RFC 6060，2011年3月。
Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1 301 468 9228
Lou Berger LabN Consulting，L.L.C.电话：+1 301 468 9228
EMail: lberger@labn.net
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Julien Meuric Orange Research & Development 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex -- France
法国拉尼翁塞德克斯市皮埃尔·马津大街22307号朱利安·迈乌里亚橙研发2号
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com